 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Paper no. 1700
13. 02. 2006
NORTHEAST VIOLENCE - An Overall View
by R.Upadhyay
Brahmaputra, Imphal and Surma valleys with surrounding mountains and hills are the geo-political boundaries of Northeast India. Comprising of seven States Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Tripura, with a collective area of 255,088 sq. km. (about 8% of the country's territory) include two third of hills and forests and one third plains. Bounded by Bhutan and China (Tibet) in north, Myanmar in east and south and Bangladesh in south and west, the region is connected with about 4000 sq. km of porous international borders and touching the two ends of only a 20km wide corridor (Siliguri Corridor) in west with the rest of India.
With a combined population of about four crores (38,495,089 -2001 Census), which includes 209 Scheduled Tribes (Arunachal Pradesh -101; Manipur -29; Assam - 23; Nagaland - 20; Tripura - 18; Meghalaya - 14; and Mizoram 53) - Northeast is a most diversified region. States with overwhelming tribal population are Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Mizoram whereas those having more than one third tribal population are Manipur and Tripura (Women and Changing Power Structure in Northeast India - Ashok Kumar Ray - Rajendra Prasad Athparia, 2006). Contrary to the general perception these tribes constitute below 30% of the population of the entire Northeast. While Assam, Tripura and Manipur are dominated by about 60% of non-tribal population, the rest of the states are having a tribal majority ranging from 60 to 90 percent. The area being the abode of various ethnic groups like Ahom, Naga, Lusai(Mizo), Meitei, Garo, Khasi, Koch, Hajomg, Rabha, Kachari, Tippera, Chakma, Abhor, Bodo, Miri and hundreds of other tribes for centuries - remained the isolated corner of Indian sub-continent and away from the larger civilisational masses.
Contented in forests and hills, the tribes of the Northeast viewed anyone entering in their territory as outsiders. With a definite territory, kinship, social structure, distinct tradition and mostly having non-monarchical character, they remained away from the influence of Sanskritisation for centuries and preserved their exclusivity till the annexation of their territories by the British in the nineteenth century. Except for Nagas and the Mizos most of others were however, under the domain of some princely kingdoms like Ahom, Manipur, Tripura and Khasis. Nagas and Mizos were constant problems for these rulers.
The British annexed the Northeast at different points of time like Assam plains (1826), Cachar plains (1830), (Khasi Hills (1833), Jaintia plains(1835), Karbi Anglong or Mikir Hills (1838), North Cachar Hills (1854), Naga Hills (1866-1904), Garo Hills (1872-73) and Mizo Hills (1890) (Autonomy Movements in Assam - Documents by P. S. Datta, 1993, Page 5-6). All these areas formed parts of Assam Province of British India. But the colonial power with a view to keep them excluded from the ministerial jurisdiction of Provincial Government declared these hill districts as Excluded Areas under the exclusive administrative control of Chief Commissioner of the province. They introduced inner line permit to prevent the entry of outsiders in this area without valid permit. This permit system debarred the hill people from interaction with the larger masses of Indian mainstream and from the socio-political influence of the outside world. Manipur, Tripura and Khasi States (Now Khasi Hills in Meghalaya) remained as Princely States under Brtish control.
The Christian missionaries followed the British and established their foothold in the region. Converting the tribes from their indigenous faith to Christianity, they robbed off their traditional identity and imposed on them a new socio-religious identity based on Christian traditions. Such socio-religious transformation was though contrary to their respective ethnic traditions, over the years the converted tribes accepted it as the generic identity. Christianisation and basic education helped some of them to get middle to lower level jobs in Church and British administration which gave birth to a middle class; a new social phenomenon in tribal society. This new class of people, who came into contact with the people outside their area - gradually developed identity consciousness. The social reformers of mainland India practically remained indifferent of this development and did not make any effort to counter it. Similarly, the leaders of freedom movement due to lack of rapport with hill people - failed to instill among them any emotional feeling towards India. Thus, in the absence of socio-cultural intercourse with the plains of India the isolated tribes developed a centrifugal tendency against mainland Indian sub-continent.
In the backdrop of the historical reality, when freedom knocked the door of the country and the British declared the lapse of its paramountcy over Indian States, it placed the national leadership in a complex situation. Being confronted with the problem of preventing further balkanization and the task for integrating 562 Princely States - they failed to appreciate the new political awakening in tribal society (Integration of the Indian States by V. P. Menon, 1985, Page 485).
The tribal masses accepted many imposed changes, which were against their self-governing character and heterogeneous system of pristine institutions but had not anticipated their future political identity because of non-participation in the freedom movement. Therefore, even with provision in Indian constitution for preservation of their traditions a section of vested interest with the investigation of foreign forces sought independent existence outside India. Ironically, those, who with a view to preserve their independent identity had fought decades after decades against the British before their subjugation - were in the forefront of secessionist demands on a plea of imaginary danger to their forcibly imposed religio-cultural identity. But the Mizos under the influence of Mizo Union, Garos under the banner of Garo National Council and most of the other tribes favoured integration of their territories with India with more tribal autonomy and thus, the entire region of the northeast became the integral part of Indian Union.
It is a known fact of history that in a federal polity the national objective cannot be achieved without regional support for which the Indian core was expected to appreciate the unique geo-social problem of the region. It needed an organic relationship with its diverse ethnic groups particularly the hill tribes. The national leadership however, failed to develop any mechanism for their emotional integration with the national mainstream. In stead of breaking the legacy of imperialist rule, undoing the arbitrary and irrational British method of administration and formulating a coherent nation-centric policy to build up an organic relation between the tribal masses and rest of people in India, they took them for granted. Ignoring the alienated mindset of these people, they provided opportunities to the forces of vested interest to fish in troubled water.
Taking advantage of the situation, the imperialist forces while establishing their operational bases in different parts of South East Asia began playing the divisive game in Northeast. (Insurgency in Northeast India by S. K. Sareen, 1982). While China with its eye on this oil, tea and mineral rich region tried to unite its people for an umbrella of Mongoloid movement, Pakistan and Bangladesh with Muslim League agenda of 1906 for Islamic expansionism promoted Muslim infiltration in the region and helped the secessionist forces against India. Church is regarded one of the four arms of western powers besides Infantry, Air Force and Navy (Dr. J. C. Kumarappa's quote from 'What ails Northeast' by Bhanu Pratap Shukla) and hence the Christian Missionaries, with a view to maintain religio-cultural hegemony in the region also helped them through western powers.
Against the background of the unique situation, India has been facing the challenge of autonomist and secessionist demands at different places in Northeast at different points of time but ethno-political violence in the the region was often greatly exaggerated in the media. India is a country where caste, creed, language and religion dominate the political discourse and therefore, the centuries old isolated region cannot be an exception. If we look into the on going movements and revolts in number of regions in the country, it appears that entire India is passing through a whirlpool of competitive and violent politics as seen in Northeast. Maoists, Sikh extremists and the movements for new States like Telangna, Bundelkhand and Harit Pradesh are nothing but a continuous search for new political identity by the diverse groups in the country.
In absence of a sense of pan-Indianism among them, hill people of Northeast, who had more proximity with the people and cities across the international border than rest of India, were not expected to overcome their political confusion overnight. With arms left by Japanese army in the region during Second World War the Nagas under the banner of Naga National Council led by Angami Zapu Phizo therefore, fired the first shot for liberation of this territory from Indian occupation just on the eve of Independence on August 14, 1947. Though, the revolt was suppressed and Phizo was arrested in 1948, his arrest made him the supreme leader of the Nagas. Gradually he succeeded in accomplishing Naga unity irrespective of their division in over a dozen of sub-tribes. He even consolidated the Nagas residing in the contiguous areas of Assam, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and even in foreign territory of Mynmar and now the insurgents are demanding Greater Nagaland, which includes all the Naga inhabited areas. The poisonous virus of Naga revolt disturbed the political climate of entire Northeast and subsequently encouraged other ethnic groups like Mizo, Bodo, and Meitie for similar demands.
The Unique geo-political situation of Northeast with long international border is vulnerable from the security point of view. Moreover, instigating hand of foreign enemies further complicated its problem. The British granted political asylum to Z. A. Phizo, the legendary Naga rebel and extended helping hand to Mizo insurgent Laldenga. Pakistan, China and Bangladesh on the other hand were supplying arms to various insurgent groups regularly. Baptist Christian Missionaries like Michel Scott meddled in tribal politics. These known misdeeds of foreign forces are enough proof to suggest that had the Indian establishment countered the evil designs of foreign adversaries effectively, the on going insurgency would not have persisted. Forced migration of Hindu refugees from East Pakistan reduced the aboriginal natives of Tripura to minority and Assamese also became scared of similar fate due to the politics of Muslim infiltration. Despite these developments the national leadership remained contended and paid little attention to study the problem dispassionately. Even re-organisation of states in mid 1950s was carried out without looking into this dark area.
The dialogues maintained by different insurgent groups in northeast with Government of India is continuing since independence. In the process some of them gave up their secessionist demand and also joined the politico-economic mainstream of the country. But there are still a sizeable number of insurgents particularly in Nagaland, Manipur, Assam and Tripura where widespread ethnic conflict has kept the entire northeast disturbed for decades.
Over the years the Government of India with a view to pacify the secessionist and autonomist ethnic groups, reorganised Assam and created Nagaland (1963), Meghalaya (1972), Mizoram (U.T. in 1972 and full-fledged statehood in 1987), Manipur (1972), and Arunachal Pradesh. Creation of smaller States on the basis of ethnic groups opened a Pandora box as the state leadership in the region have not fulfilled the political aspirations of over 200 hundred tribes, who have been in inter-ethnic conflicts for centuries. In Manipur various aboriginal ethnic groups like Meithi, Nagas, Kukis, and Hmars are fighting against each other under their respective insurgent leaders. In Meghalaya too, Garos and Khasis do not have smooth relation. In Assam the Bodos, Kacharis and a number of other tribes are demanding their separate States or independence. Even though peace is restored in Mizoram, Chakmas in this State are not at all comfortable with the Mizos.
The background of all the secessionist movements in Northeast is different but ironically, a section of media, academics and social scientists are trying to combine them together and have made the problem more and more complex. Blaming the Centre for the neglect of the region they plead that the former is treating its people as if they are not the citizens like rest of India. Mahasweta Devi, a well-known litterateur while answering to a question on unrest in Northeast said, "I think the area has been neglected for years. We have not treated them as part of India so it has resulted in unrest" (Pioneer dated January 16, 2006). Such academic assessment suggests that the genesis of the trouble has emanated from the neglect of the region.
Movement for preservation of ethnic identity in India has been an important issue of political discourse for decades. There is nothing wrong if such discourse is meant for the progress of the society without negating the nation building process. In Northeast it is however used by wide network of self-serving and anti-people corrupt politicians, Government officials, drug and arm smugglers and lumpen elements with the help of instigating hands of neighbouring countries.
The educated elite among the hill peoples with their share in political power emerged as a new feudal class that changed the socio-economic scenario in the in tribal society. Usurping the traditional right over land and forest of their own people and dividing the tribal society between rich and poor, they created class rivalry, which was unusual for tribal society. Ironically, despite the deep-rooted inter-tribe contradiction, tribal intelligentsia, who failed to share political power, is in unending search for larger identity on the plea of ethno-nationalism, which is the common ideology of all the secessionist groups. Their so-called quest for identity related insurgency is simply a pressure tactics for more and more political concessions.
The State leaders are saleable commodities at the hands of the ruling party at Centre. They change their loyalty overnight if there is change in Centre as they are more interested in seeking Central fund than to change the secessionist tendencies of the people. The national leadership overlooks the siphoning of public fund to the insurgents for the sake of their respective party's interest. Media reports suggest that the insurgents extort huge amount from ruling party leaders in their respective States. "The Outlook magazine carried a story that Ibobi Singh, Chief Minister of Manipur paid Rs. 1.5 crore to some Revolutionary Peoples' Front. Former Governor Lt. Gen. (Retd) V. K. Nayyar levelled similar charges against two former Chief Ministers in the State, besides a number of other politicians" (Pioneer dated February 9, 2006). In spite of the known nexus between the various anti-people forces and the insurgents, to put blame only on Centre may not be fair.
Above all, the ground reality also suggests that the failure of the Central Government to manage the international boarder with firm hand to counter the unfriendly designs of our neighbours is the prime reason behind the unrest. Except Bhutan no other country across the border took tough action against the insurgents. If trans-border migration of insurgents is prevented, they may not survive for long. Ever Since Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of the country was trapped in the 'Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai' slogan and faced humiliating defeat in 1962, his successors continuously maintained soft attitude towards undesirable developments along the northeastern borders. Failure of the Centre in 1962 War gave rise to centrifugal forces in Northeast to accelerate secessionist demands.
The insurgents groups have covered a long way in fighting for the independence of their territories and some of them strengthened their striking power due to the sanctuary and help from across the international border but the common masses are not with them. They are fed up with the disturbances, which have only increased their miseries. They are more interested for development than to support them. It is a historical fact that rise of any country is closely linked to the emotional integration of its diverse regions and accordingly, contrary to the general academic perception the post-colonial leadership of India always accepted the people of the region as equal partners in nation-building process. But it is unfortunate that they are facing the trauma of insurgency for over half a century at the hands of a group of their own people. As discussed above, their owes are factually linked with the deep nexus between the insurgents and corrupt politicians and State officials, who allow unabated black-marketing of essential commodities and drug smuggling and not with identity crisis as is often highlighted by the media.
One can understand that the hill people of the region were under historical isolation from the socio-cultural interaction with the larger civilisational masses for centuries and were therefore apprehensive against the imaginary danger to their ethnic identity. But had such historical background been reason behind insurgency, why did the Assamese, who had centuries old socio-cultural link with the rest of Indian sub-continent and had taken an active part in freedom movement also now pose challenge against their assimilation with Indian State?
In view of the multiplicity of large number of ethnic groups, who are now aspiring to have their respective independent States or sovereignty on the plea of their pre-British status and separate nationality, the problem is getting multiplied day by day. The belief of the hill people that they were sovereign entity before their annexation by the British is applicable to a number of ethnic groups in the country. After departure of British over five hundred Princely states which had sovereign status merged under one democratic geo-political boundary and the Hill districts of Assam also became a part of Indian Union. Thus, harping on Pre-British status will only add to the prevailing socio political tension in the region. With growing number of militant outfits, if independence were granted on the basis of ethnic identity, there would be endless fight for hundreds of States or nations in the northeast. This is neither practicable nor feasible. However, being a region of competing ethnicity of a large number of tribes and sub-tribes, Northeast needs a lasting solution in totality through a revolutionary nation-centric policy.
Academics, political analysts, social scientists and tribal intelligentsia are pondering over only the economic neglect of the region and their pre-British identity as primary reasons behind the insurgency. But if one looks into the overall economic structure of the country Northeast is also in the continuing process of development particularly in fields of education, communications, rural electrification and cottage industries. The level of development in this region may not be at par with relatively higher developed states like Punjab, Haryana, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka and Tamilnadu but in comparison to BIMARU States, from where crores of populations are migrated for search of livelihood, Northeast is much better off. An ambitious plan of a grand Asian high way to connect India to Myanmar, Thailand and China through Assam, Manipur and Nagaland is already in pipeline, which will provide economic boom to the region once it is through. Thus, the blame on Centre for economic neglect of Northeast may not be fair. In fact the Indian establishment provided respectable and proportionate place in the political map of the country also to the people of Northeast. But with greater number of western educated people than many of Indians in plains, they expect larger share in political power.
Despite political and administrative corruption, the increasing participation of the people of Northeast in the development process of their respective States and significant changes in their socio-political behaviour have sent a positive signal that they are working as equal partners in the nation-building exercise. Sending larger number of their representatives in Parliament from national parties like Congress, BJP and CPM and participation of the people of entire region in elections prove their commitments towards the core of Indian Union. Laldenga, the Mizo rebel leader ultimately joined the mainstream politics under India's constitution and Mizoram is practically free from the menace of insurgency. Similar is the case of Meghalaya and Arunchal Pradesh. Therefore, the apprehension of the dismemberment of Northeast from India through the so called co-ordinated challenge to the Indian core is far from the ground reality. Only some misguided sections in Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura and Assam are working for India's inimical neighbours and anti-Indian forces only for their self-serving interest. They need to be handled with a strong political will as the rise of a sovereign state depends upon the integration of its diverse regions under a centripetal pull. Once the forces of disintegration are allowed to grow it will be the beginning of its decline.
Bibliography:
Insurgency in North - East India -S. K. Sreen, 1982.
India's North - East in Flames - V. I. K. Sarin, 1982.
North-Eastern Frontier of India - A. C. Sinha, 1994.
Integration of Indian States- V. P. Menon, 1985.
Thirty Years of Naga Insurgency - M. Horam.
India and North - East India -Sajal Nag, 1998.
Hill Politics of Northeast India -S. K. Chaube.
Women and Changing Power Structure in Northeast India - Ashok Kumar Ray - Rajendra Prasad Athparia, 2006.
Tribal Identity and Tension in North East India - B. Datta Ray, 1989.
The Periphery Strikes Back - Challenges to the Nation - State in Assam and Nagaland -Udayon Mishra, 2000.
Rites of Passage - Sanjoy Hazarika, 2000.
General Election in India (2004) - M. L. Ahuja
Anatomy of Revolt - S. Gurudev, 1996.
Echos from North Eastern India - S. K. Ghosh - Prabha Chopra, 1960.
Autonomy Movements in Assam - Documents by P. S. Datta, 1993.
(Email: ramashray60@rediffmail.com)
Home | Papers | Notes | Forum | Search | Feedback | Links
Copyright © South Asia Analysis Group
All rights reserved. Permission is given to refer this on-line document for use in research papers and articles, provided the source and the author's name are acknowledged. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes.